Ex-Apologist offers an excellent analysis of a common apologetic strategy against naturalism seen here! It seems he's expanding on what it means to apply Occam's Razor to the riddle of existence. Start with the simplest explanation and then allow for more complexity as problems arise with that conclusion. I'm trying to develop a scale for extraordinary claims seen here. His analysis helps to complete it.

21
comments:

"Start with the simplest explanation and then allow for more complexity as problems arise with that conclusion."

How ironic since the Creator is the simplest explanation.

Start with God and then allow for more complexity in explanation as (alleged)problems arise with that "conclusion."

Yes, God is clearly a conclusion, btw. The progression starts with all of the evidence that first leads us to agnostic theism.

Until we address the NATURE of information itself and its identifiable sequences as a language, and until we address the reality of complex mechanical working systems (that don't form spontaneously) as well as programming (If-then algorithmic programming) we are not even beginning to understand how agnostic theism is the logical first conclusion based on very basic deduction and honesty.

Until we stop defining the empirical world before we look carefully to see if it is the result of creation or natural existence independent of creation, we will never have a proper view of science. If we start with the circular assumption that the empirical world is natural and without any Creator, then we have set ourselves up for interpreting data one way. Information always comes from Intelligence as do factories (nano-factories of protein synthesis). Programming comes from a Programmer.

The human consciousness argument is just corroborative evidence, once we have looked honestly at current postive data.

In order to justify your human fears you have created a god tha acts just like you.

And then you speak of the covenants between God and those Godloves in certain ways.You cannot understand a God who loves everyone the same so you createa God who loves certain people for certain reasons.And then you call these fictions religions.I call them blasphemies.Because any statement that says God loves one more than another is false.And any action that does the same is not a sacriment but a sacriledge.by Neale Donald Walsh

One of your best apologetics post yet. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, garbles together meaningless concepts and non-sequiturs in just the right sequence as to give the impression, at a quick skim-read, that it is profound, contains at least one circle argument and argues from your conclusion.

Mr. Loftus I have come upon your blog only just recently but must say I am impressed with your independent zeal toward science. Indeed as this "ex-apologist" shows scientists are not agreed about their presuppositions. Perhaps they should realize they admit all kinds of weird stuff into their worlds such as dark matter and observer-dependent invisible things like quarks!

While I do not always agree with your discoveries so far, thanks for the profound stimulation. The academic blogosphere gets too stuffy in my experience.

NS

P.S. Do you ever plan on making a book in your debunking series about science?

Shane,Skirting to generalities about religions is evasive to theistic implication which first leads to agnostic theism in scientific observation that is independent of materialistic bias.

What you are failing to see is that requiring naturalistic or materialistic explanations for everything is actually requiring circular reasoning regarding naturalistic assumptions and conclusions. You have to completely ignore the possibility that the ORDER we see in the universe is sustained by the continuing power of the Creator.

When you say "o.k. we don't know if we are looking at material that is independent of a Creator or not..." THEN you can look at specific information, IF-THEN programming, and complex mechanical working systems and remove your bias against theistic implication.

Scientific observation that allows for theistic implication is no longer "atheistic" in its approach to science (awtheistic being requiring materialistic conclusion and assumptions).

This is about our philosophy in science...this is not about specifying everything according to fideism.

Please note that "Start with God and then allow for more complexity in explanation as (alleged)problems arise with that "conclusion."" was a response of irony(tongue in cheek) to the quote and is NOT my argument since I clearly argue that agnostic theism is first concluded based on scientific observation.

Breckmin, how is saying that God is the creator makes anything simpler. Doesn't it just add another layer of complexity? It begs the questions "Who made God?" and "How exactly did he make the universe and out of what?" To understand the science of dark matter and quarks, you need to look up the work of Dr Lawrence Krauss.

"Andre,"contains at least one circle argument and argues from your conclusion."

Please demonstrate specifically how my accumulative case argument does this. Where is the circle you are referring to?"

No Breckmin, I'm not playing. I come here from time to time to read the posts with some substance and interest, not to argue with believers like you. You start with a belief in God and then argue from there, as is clear from your post that I replied to, and your posts in general.

Read my initial comment again, and if it makes sense then good, if it doesn't then I do not have the patience to explain it to you.

You can not, on the one hand, try to undercut the scientific process by appealing to what is essentially the problem of inference, and the turn around and INFER that the order that we see in the universe requires a supernatural creator.

That is pure foolishness. Even Augustine would recognize you for what you are.